[Three of Seven]

COMMUNITY DEBATE
SHOULD PETTY CRIMINALS GO TO THE MILITARY OR PRISON?

In many countries, prisons are overflowing with offenders and the costs to maintain prisons being a drain on government resources. I think everyone can agree on the point that those who commit terrible crimes should be kept away from the public, but what about those who commit petty crimes? Or young offenders? In some cases, they are given community service, or their sentence gets reduced. Is locking up people for small crimes worth the cost to the government or would they learn more and be better served going into the military?

Some cases, the person is offered a choice between prison and military service, but should it be a choice or should such crimes be given a mandatory sentence of military service? They say that military service can teach people a little bit of discipline and a sense of self-worth, which could be argued to be the best way to rehabilitate somebody into normal life. The risk is, what if it doesn't work?

What do you think? I hope I have left you with enough questions!

[Deltron]

criminal or not, if you make people go you won't have a strong military. You want people who want to be there. I knew a Marine who joined because his parents would've cut him off their will if he don't do something meaningful. We didn't get much out of him and he got out after 4. Then again, I served with a Marine who was gang related and had a violent criminal past. He was one of the best I ever served with. Who knew that a life of crime can make someone so resourceful that it translates into useful experiences in the Marines? And being gang related gave him the edge. he knew the concept of structure, chain of command, and loyalty before the rest of us even graduated boot camp. This person is still in going on 18 years of service.

Anyways, I don't think it's fair that a petty criminal gets to choose 4 years of service over jail. I mean, in the military you travel the world, eat really good, make the best friends you'll ever have in life and you don't pay rent/utility. If you get married you get more money, more kids you get more money. and finally a full ride to college with a nice salary with it after you get out.

I know that the prisons are overpopulated but the military aren't missing their recruiting quotas either. back in the 90's the recruiter would ask how many charges do you have? did you ever go to jail? let me see your tattoos. Today the recruiters are asking "What's your GPA? Did you go to college? What can you offer us?" they vet a lot of recruits. because training someone who lacks conformity costs the military a lot more than what the person is actually worth.

the military is not punishment either. so why compare jail and the military? The military can be just as rewarding and even more fun than college. Why don't we sentence criminals to college instead? it would be cheaper for society. and the military also has a crime rate. why send us more?

30 day paid vacation a year. 4 day holiday for every federal holiday (yes- 4 days for columbus day) and three for the rest. maternity leave for males. COLA. and finally the TITLE!!

[Three of Seven]

But what good is punishment going to do? A lot of petty criminals are there because they are disadvantaged and don't feel they have a place to belong, prison gangs might end up giving them a sense of belonging but then they are just going to get out and reoffend. In some cases, petty criminals go on to do worse crimes.

So if you can rehabilitate those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who commit a petty crime, by sending them into the military, why not? Some criminals need to be rehabilitated, not isolated.

[Sagison Brandt]

Candidly, I'd comment that the argument is not so simple as is laid out here, and within the space of one posting there's a significant amount of unpacking that needs to occur - a couple of sociological and criminological theses are floating there, as well as differing perspectives on societal and economic impact on criminality in general. For the sake of throwing out a discussion piece, I'd comment that many "petty criminals" require less rehabilitation and more economic / educational opportunities.

One predominate theory of western criminality posits that the primary issue for most criminals is impulse control, especially when faced with a criminal opportunity that lacks capable guardianship and fits within the bounded rationality of the potential perpetrator. Impulse control and an inability to act with honor, courage, and commitment, even when not being monitored, are not the defining characteristics of a successful military service member in the modern era. Perhaps a Visigoth would find fault in the argument.

That aside, to answer the binary question presented, I would say that if the criminal is question is eligible for community supervision (probation/parole/pre-trial diversion/half way house release status/ what have you) and meets the minimum qualifications for the military program in question, then the option should be encouraged as a part of the rehabilitation process, but not mandated. One of the core strengths of an all volunteer military comes from precisely that aspect - the volunteer part.

There is a tremendous array of non-military community outreach programs to include personal counseling, vocational skill training and placement, substance abuse assistance, etc, etc as well, all of which are made available for free or at a sliding scale to offenders in some sort of community supervision program. The military is not the only option, and in many case, would not even be the optimal one.

Just my buck fifty on the matter. Your mileage may vary.

[Dark]

Is there an appreciable amount of petty criminals held for notable durations in the prison system?

I was under the impression that most are repeat or violent offenders. Petty criminals only receive lengthy sentences if they're habitual repeat offenders, which is something that is often overlooked when there's social media outrage over a lack of punishment for infamous first time offenders.